On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 11:11:05AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > > If the eeprom is not accessible, an nvmem device will be registered, the > > read will fail, and the device will be torn down. > … > > Can it be nicer to present the introduction for failure conditions as an enumeration? > > > > Move the failure point before registering the nvmem device. > … > > I would interpret the diff data more in the way that a devm_nvmem_register() call > should be performed a bit later in the implementation of the function “at24_probe”. > How do you think about to mention the affected function also in the summary phrase? > Hi, This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing list. I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore. Please do not bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time. Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to follow it at all. The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and inability to adapt to feedback. Please feel free to also ignore emails from them. thanks, greg k-h's patch email bot
